Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anat · 05-30-2005, 10:02 AM

The Joseph story has a caravan of camels traveling through Canaan to Egypt, whereas Egyptian art from the supposed time depicts donkeys as the main draft animal used in commerce. Camels may have been in use for other purposes, but not as described there.

Anat · 05-30-2005, 04:03 PM

Some information on camels vs donkeys as pack animals in the Near East:

From The Frankincense Story:

Quote:

All along the 65 staging posts of the route they had to pay for accommodation, food, camel fodder, water, special protection money to local chieftains, as well as a gratuity to the Roman customs officials at Alexandria. These 'travel expenses' were slightly lower on other routes, but they all reflected the length and dangers of the journey. Small wonder that incense was valued as highly as gold. Originally the overland transport was accomplished by donkeys and mules, which needed frequent rest and watering, But from the 11th century B.C. they were substituted by large caravans of camels, which could plod along all day and part of the night without stopping, and didn't require fresh water every day. Soon the caravans grew in size and up to 2,000 to 3,000 camels in one caravan became a frequent sight! road posts with soldiers and places for lodging and food were needed, and thus the famous caravanseras grew up along the Incense Road.

From Transportation: (Bold mine)

Quote:

Domesticated animals such as donkeys and mules were the most common load carriers in Ancient Egypt and were used for farming. Donkeys were domesticated in the fourth millennium BC and were used almost exclusively for land travel up to the Persian period.

Horses were brought to Egypt by the army of the Hyksos invaders at the end of the Middle Kingdom. Horses were generally used to pull two-wheeled chariots rather than ridden. By the New Kingdom, Egyptians began horse breeding and horses belonged to the military elite and ruling class.

Occasional and infrequent mention of the one-humped camel or dromedary may be encountered in connection with the Early Dynastic Period. But not until after the foreign conquerors of Assyrians, Persians, and Alexander the Great were these animals brought in larger numbers into Egypt. By the Ptolemaic period, camels were used as the main animals for transportation across the desert.

From Voyages of Exploration

Quote:

Henenu
The Egyptians undertook major journeys from very early times. The oldest record of a journey to Punt is on the Palermo stone, dated to the 5th dynasty [1]. During the 11th Dynasty, Henenu with three thousand men transported the materials for building ships through Wadi Hammamat to the coast of the Red Sea.

I left Koptos on the road set by his majesty. The soldiers I had with me came from the south. All the king's officials, the men from the city and the village, marched behind me. The scouts opened up the road ahead repulsing the king's enemies. All the officials obeyed me. They were in constant touch with the runners...

The Red Land they had to cross was desert and the provisioning of such a large army difficult. This was exacerbated by the fact that camels were unavailable until Persian times and donkeys had to be used.

To every man I gave his rations, a water-bottle, a staff, two jars of water, twenty loaves of bread. The donkeys carried the jars. When one of them tired, another was substituted. I excavated twelve holes in the wadi, two holes at Idahet, twenty cubits wide and thirty deep. One hole at Idahet ten cubits in every direction, at a place where water sprang.

On reaching the Great Green they assembled the ship and after sacrificing wild bulls, African oxen and small livestock, they sailed south along the Arabian peninsula.

I did as the king had ordered and brought him all I had found on both coasts of God's Land ...

This is evidence that donkeys were used, despite their huge need for water and fodder. Surely camels would have been preferred had they been available?

From Nomads and Pharaohs:

Quote:

Mining resulted in such extensive recruitment of Medjay into the Egyptian army that by the time of the New Kingdom in the late second millennium, some 500 years after the Semnah Dispatches, an entire army corps was called "Medjay." Gold prospecting missions also employed Medjay as mercenaries and guides. One such massive operation, sponsored by Ramses III in 1180 BC, included 5000 soldiers, 2000 state slaves and 800 foreign captives—quite a few people to be supported while they wandered the desert. The services of knowledgeable guides would have been essential. In addition, Medjay soldiers often escorted the donkey caravans that served the mines. (Domesticated camels would not reach the Medjay for another 1000 years.) Southbound trade caravans similarly relied upon the Medjay's knowledge of the lands beyond the Nile Valley.

From there:

Quote:

It was also during the Ptolemaic period that the nomads of the Eastern Desert experienced a four-legged—and often bad-tempered—revolution: the camel. The exact date of the domesticated camel's appearance in Egypt is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that it became part of the Blemmyes' and Trogodytes' husbandry during the final centuries BC.

The camel provided a newly dependable means of long-distance travel as well as a new source of nourishment and wealth. After its arrival, the desert tribes increased in size and vigor. Rock drawings—like all art, a product of leisure—reappeared throughout the region after a millennium or more during which little had been created. In addition to depictions of fauna, the abundance of tribal symbols reflects a new level of identity, perhaps derived from the nomads' growing sense of their strength—strength the Blemmyes would use against Rome.

From Stockbreeding and the Hunt:

Quote:

Wild camels were probably known to the Egyptians from the distant past. There is a camel's grave in the Helwan cemetery (1st and 2nd dynasties) and camel-shaped vases have been found at the Old Kingdom site of Abusir el-Meleq. The Bedouin of northern and central Arabia are credited with having domesticated camels in the latter half of the second millennium BC. Authors differ in dating the first occurrence of domesticated camels in Egypt - theories range from 525 BC to the turn of the millennium. With its proverbially modest requirements of food and water, both being stored in its fatty hump, the camel enabled long desert treks to be accomplished much faster and more safely than before.

IOW the evidence for the early presence of camels may have been from wild ones.

Julius · 06-01-2005, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

My favorite anachronism, for which I have seen no satisfactory explanation, is found in Exodus 19:22. Farrell Till gets credit for this one.

The problem is that priests weren't ordained until Exodus 28.

The Jews do not read the Torah as being a narrative of consecutive events.

You may wish to check out this link, the appropriate subject being about half way down:

http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaay...lechlecha.html

There are other interestings problems if you assume the Torah is written in consecutive order.

John Kesler · 06-02-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler:
My favorite anachronism, for which I have seen no satisfactory explanation, is found in Exodus 19:22. Farrell Till gets credit for this one.

<snip>

The problem is that priests weren't ordained until Exodus 28.

Originally Posted by Julius:
The Jews do not read the Torah as being a narrative of consecutive events.

You may wish to check out this link, the appropriate subject being about half way down:

http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaa.../lechlecha.html

There are other interestings problems if you assume the Torah is written in consecutive order.

From the Web site you mentioned comes this, emphasis mine:

Quote:

Ramban's view is consistent with his general understanding of the principle discussed here (i.e., that the Torah is not in chronological order). He writes that the Torah is in chronological order, except where the verses clearly indicate otherwise. Even then, if we wish to interpret the Torah in non-chronological order, we are obligated to find a compelling reason why the Torah would deviate from the proper order. (Ramban, Bemidbar 16:1)

What is your "compelling reason" that Exodus 28 should be chronologically placed ahead of Exodus 19?

Julius · 06-02-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

What is your "compelling reason" that Exodus 28 should be chronologically placed ahead of Exodus 19?

The website seems to have gone down, at least momentarily. I am glad you got it anyway.

Let me admit now that I did not read the quotes from the Bible when I posted before. I have now read them. I don't see the contradiction, necessarily. Chapter 28 deals with the establishing of the Aaronic High Priesthood. Only Aaron and his sons are mentioned. Chapter 19 seems more general, perhaps applying to the entire tribe of Levi or to the 70 elders. I honestly don't know; but perhaps I can find out what the oral tradition of the Jews says. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, is also called a priest of YHVH; and he was not even of Israel, let alone of the tribe of Levi or a descendant of Aaron.

If chapter 28 does include, without saying so, all the other priests, then the passage must be out of order. I tend to think chapter 19 means all the priests while chapter 28 relates only to the Aaronic High Priesthood. The other priests had their duties; but only the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies once a year--and that explains, I think, the special ordaination given in chapter 28.

Julius · 06-02-2005, 11:57 PM

To John Kesler,

I was wrong, I discovered. The Levites were not yet ordained as priests at this time. The situation before the episode of the Golden Calf was that the first born of each family acted as priest. After the Golden Calf, the station of priest was given to the Levites.

So it was the first born males of all tribes who are mentioned in chapter 19. (Chapter 28 has to do with the Aaronic priesthood and not the Levitical priesthood in general.) I found the information at:

http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/exchange.html

Julius

John Kesler · 06-03-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Julius:
Let me admit now that I did not read the quotes from the Bible when I posted before.

I appreciate your honesty, but the fact that you didn't even read the text under consideration leads me to believe that you sought out a "solution" to the problem rather than trying to determine if there is actually an error. Since your next post states that you have opted for a solution different from the one you offered initially, I will skip to...

Quote:

Julius:
I was wrong, I discovered. The Levites were not yet ordained as priests at this time. The situation before the episode of the Golden Calf was that the first born of each family acted as priest. After the Golden Calf, the station of priest was given to the Levites.
So it was the first born males of all tribes who are mentioned in chapter 19. (Chapter 28 has to do with the Aaronic priesthood and not the Levitical priesthood in general.) I found the information at: http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/exchange.html

Sorry, but this attempt won't work either. The Levites were not priests; they were assistants to Aaron and his descendants who alone acted as Yahweh's priests. Read Numbers 3, which I produce below for your convenience:

Quote:

Numbers 3:3-13 (NRSV, with Yahweh instead of "the LORD")
3 This is the lineage of Aaron and Moses at the time when Yahweh spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai. 2These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar; 3these are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests, whom he ordained to minister as priests. 4Nadab and Abihu died before Yahweh when they offered unholy fire before Yahweh in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron. 5 Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: 6Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them before Aaron the priest, so that they may assist him. 7They {Levites} shall perform duties for him and for the whole congregation in front of the tent of meeting, doing service at the tabernacle; 8they shall be in charge of all the furnishings of the tent of meeting, and attend to the duties for the Israelites as they do service at the tabernacle. 9You shall give the Levites to Aaron and his descendants; they are unreservedly given to him from among the Israelites. 10But you shall make a register of Aaron and his descendants; it is they who shall attend to the priesthood, and any outsider who comes near shall be put to death.
11 Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: 12 I hereby accept the Levites from among the Israelites as substitutes for all the firstborn that open the womb among the Israelites. The Levites shall be mine, 13for all the firstborn are mine; when I killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both human and animal; they shall be mine. I am Yahweh.

This passage makes clear that the Levites were merely assistants to the Aaronic priests and that anyone other than Aaron or his descendants who "comes near" should be killed. Now look again at Exodus 19:

Quote:

21Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Go down and warn the people not to break through to Yahweh to look; otherwise many of them will perish. 22Even the priests who approach Yahweh must consecrate themselves or Yahweh will break out against them." 23Moses said to Yahweh, "The people are not permitted to come up to Mount Sinai; for you yourself warned us, saying, 'Set limits around the mountain and keep it holy.' " 24Yahweh said to him, "Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let either the priests or the people break through to come up to Yahweh; otherwise he will break out against them."

Notice that these priests are referred to as those "who approach Yahweh" (NASB: "who come near to Yahweh"), the same terminology we saw in Numbers 3:10 which indicated that only "Aaron and his descendants" could "come near." This same wording is used in other Exodus passages, in reference to Aaron and his descendants:

Quote:

Exodus 28:43a:
43 Aaron and his sons shall wear them when they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place...

Exodus 30:19-20a
19with the water Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. 20When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister...

Also note that Exodus 19:24 makes a distinction between "the priests" and "the people," indicating that a separate, priestly caste was already in place.

Further, Numbers 3 makes reference to the "unholy fire" that Nadab and Abihu offered to Yahweh. This account is found in Leviticus 10, and the fact that the Numbers 3 author refers to it indicates that an Aaronic priesthood was in place before the consecration of the Levites.
There was no transition from firstborn sons to Levites as priests. Priests existed already, and the firstborn merely were replaced by Levites as assistants to the priests.

I have heard your Web site's "explanation" before, but as I showed, it does not resolve the discrepancy.

Julius · 06-06-2005, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Also note that Exodus 19:24 makes a distinction between "the priests" and "the people," indicating that a separate, priestly caste was already in place.

It says only "priests" and not "a separate, priestly caste." By this is meant the first born males who acted as priests for their families were to take more precautions than others.

We have the evidence of the oral tradition of the Jews which states that the first born acted as priests; and we see also that this was changed after the Golden Calf, where the Levites were substituted for the first born. Your assertion that Levites were not priests is not at all clear.

Various types of priests did various types of things. The High Priest ALONE was permitted into the Holy of Holies. Just one person at a time was High Priest--contrary to what the New Testament says when it says both Annas and Caiphas were High Priests (Luke 3:2). Some priests could "draw near" enough to sprinkle blood on the altar--but that was not in the Holy of Holies. As the system evolved, some priests were in charge of the incense and so on.

The Levites, you will note, were not given land of their own on a tribal basis but had to live among all Israel; and this indicates that they provided some sort of priestly function on a daily basis, acting as the substitute for the first born who previously had held this position.

BEFORE this time, others were said to be priests:

Ge 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Joseph and Moses both married daughters of non-Israelite priests:

Ge 41:45 - And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.

Ex 18:1 - When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt;
Ex 18:12 - And Jethro, Moses' father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father in law before God.

Now, surely Jethro was acting as a priest here, by offering this sacrifice, so we see that non-Levitical persons were called priests.

AFTER:

In Judges 17, we have the example of Micah who wanted to have his own priest, so he reverted to the former way of doing things and consecrated his own son; but when a Levite came along, he hired him for the job. Verse 13: "Then said Micah, Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest."

David and Solomon offered sacrifices. They were surely not Levites, let alone of Aaronic descent. David was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalms 110:4).

Gideon of the tribe of Manasseh sacrificed (Judges 6) as did Manoah of the tribe of Dan (Judges 13).

Over a period of time, the Levites' importance was downplayed; and over still more time, we see conflicts arising in the descendants of Aaron for supremacy. (Thus, Abiathar was replaced by Zadok--and the prophet Jeremiah seems not to have agreed with that, altogether.) But how was it in the time of Moses?

Deuteronomy 10:8 At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.
9 Wherefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, according as the LORD thy God promised him.

Deuteronomy 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.

Joshua followed this:

Joshua 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.

The Levites are called priests here and are to receive offerings since they are priests. By the time we reach Ezekiel, things are changing; but at the time of Moses, the Levites could be called priests and were, as we have just seen; and they were the replacement for the first born males who had acted as "priests" prior to this.

As for the matter of drawing near, this is a matter of degree. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies; but others of Aaronic descent could approach the altar. Some priests never got to do that; and it seems that the "doorkeepers" of the Temple could be called priests even if they were not of the house of Levi.

At Sinai, we have a similar situation. Not all the "priests" accompanied Moses to the mountain top. We are told that Joshua went up with him; but we do not know how far; and there were the seventy elders who were allowed closer than others--and we could say that they were a sort of priesthood also, acting as intermediaries between God and man--the Sanhedrin being a future development of this seventy. Beyond that, we would have the first born males, also as a type of priests. In this type of hierachy, we see that different people could approach at different degrees.

The layout of the Temple shows this system of degrees also--from Holy of Holies, to Holy place, to court of men, court of women and court of gentiles.

In one way, all of Israel could be said to be "priests" since they were to act as intermediaries between God and man.

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

So you find the word "priests" has different meanings in different places. Exodus 19:6 states all Israel are priests; but 19:24 shows a distinction, as you pointed out, between the priests and the people. Anyone qualified to act on behalf of another could be said to be a priest; and this has different degrees to it.

John Kesler · 06-06-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Julius:
We have the evidence of the oral tradition of the Jews which states that the first born acted as priests;

I don't care about "the oral tradition of the Jews"; I care about what the text says. The name of this thread is "Anachronisms in the Bible," not "Anachronisms in the Bible and Traditions to Explain Them Away."

Quote:

and we see also that this was changed after the Golden Calf, where the Levites were substituted for the first born. Your assertion that Levites were not priests is not at all clear.

My "assertion" is what the text says, which I even quoted above. Here is the relevant part again:

Quote:

Numbers 3:1-3; 9-10
3:1This is the lineage of Aaron and Moses at the time when Yahweh spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai. 2 These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar; 3 these are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests, whom he ordained to minister as priests. 9 You shall give the Levites to Aaron and his descendants; they are unreservedly given to him from among the Israelites. 10 But you shall make a register of Aaron and his descendants; it is they who shall attend to the priesthood, and any outsider who comes near shall be put to death.

Please note (again) that ONLY Aaron and his descendants were to "attend to the priesthood," and the Levites were given to Aaron and his descendants as assistants. Anyone other than Aaron and his descendants who "came near" was to be killed.

Most of your post is irrelevant to the discussion, because you seem to think that because some people identified as priests existed before Exodus 19 justifies the unsuppoted assertion that the firstborn were the Exodus 19 priests. The issue involved isn't whether anyone was ever called a priest before Exodus 19. The issue is whether Exodus 19 is an anachronistic reference to a branch of ISRAELITE priests that didn't yet exist. Melchizedek was a priest of El Elyon. Jethro was a Midianite priest and Potipherah was priest of On. None of this has any relevance to our discussion. You have produced not one verse which says that the firstborn were priests before the golden "calf" episode.

Quote:

Over a period of time, the Levites' importance was downplayed; and over still more time, we see conflicts arising in the descendants of Aaron for supremacy. (Thus, Abiathar was replaced by Zadok--and the prophet Jeremiah seems not to have agreed with that, altogether.) But how was it in the time of Moses?

Deuteronomy 10:8 At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.
9 Wherefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, according as the LORD thy God promised him.

Deuteronomy 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.

The problem for you here is that Deuteronomy is portrayed as Moses' farewell address in which Moses gives instructions for the Israelites after they have settled in Canaan (something that Moses was prohibited from doing), so these instructions are not what was extant "in the time of Moses," but are for a time when Moses would be dead. Numbers chapters three and eighteen clearly make the distinction between Aaron and his family (the priests) on the one hand and the Levites (assistants to the priests) on the other. Deuteronomy broadens the priesthood to include the whole tribe of Levi, but again this is all irrelevant to the original question which is if the author of Exodus 19 anachronistically refer to priests which had not come into existence.

Your references to non-Levites offering sacrifices also is irrelevant. You seem to think that because the Bible has examples of deviations from the prescribed norms, you (and your Jewish sources) have carte blanche to conjecture that the firstborn could have been the "priests" of Exodus 19. I have news for you: the Bible is not an internally consistent book.

You conclude with this:

Quote:

In one way, all of Israel could be said to be "priests" since they were to act as intermediaries between God and man.

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

So you find the word "priests" has different meanings in different places. Exodus 19:6 states all Israel are priests; but 19:24 shows a distinction, as you pointed out, between the priests and the people. Anyone qualified to act on behalf of another could be said to be a priest; and this has different degrees to it.

Your second citation undermines any point you tried to make with the first, since obviously calling the nation of Israel "priests" did not preclude having a separate, priestly class. And no, not "anyone qualified to act on behalf of another" was a priest. Reread the books of Exodus and Numbers.

Exodus 19 contains a reference to a class of priests that didn't yet exist, and nothing in your posts has refuted this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2005, 10:02 AM	#11
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	The Joseph story has a caravan of camels traveling through Canaan to Egypt, whereas Egyptian art from the supposed time depicts donkeys as the main draft animal used in commerce. Camels may have been in use for other purposes, but not as described there.

06-02-2005, 11:57 PM	#16
Julius Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Central Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 71	To John Kesler, I was wrong, I discovered. The Levites were not yet ordained as priests at this time. The situation before the episode of the Golden Calf was that the first born of each family acted as priest. After the Golden Calf, the station of priest was given to the Levites. So it was the first born males of all tribes who are mentioned in chapter 19. (Chapter 28 has to do with the Aaronic priesthood and not the Levitical priesthood in general.) I found the information at: http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/exchange.html Julius

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.